Impact of changes in anaesthesia staff assignments on billing compliance, financial margins, and costs of anaesthesia services: development and application of a margin-cost estimation tool.

BACKGROUND: The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provide guidelines for the coverage of anaesthesia residents and certified registered nurse anaesthetists (CRNAs) by anaesthesiologists. We tested the hypothesis that changes in the anaesthesia staffing model increase billing compliance. METHODS: We analysed 13 926 anaesthesia cases performed between September 2019 and November 2019 (baseline), and between September 2020 and November 2020 (after change in staff model) at a US academic medical centre using an estimation tool. The intervention was assignment of additional 12-h weekday CRNAs plus an additional anaesthesiologist who covered weekdays after 17:00, weekends, and holidays. The proportion of cases with billing compliant coverage (covered either by solo anaesthesiologist or anaesthesiologist covering two or fewer residents or four or fewer CRNAs) was analysed using logistic and segmented regression analyses. RESULTS: The change in staff model was associated with a decrease in non-optimal anaesthesia staff assignments from 4.2% to 1.2% of anaesthesia cases (adjusted odds ratio 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.32; P<0.001) and an increase in billable anaesthesia units of 0.6 per anaesthesia case (95% CI 0.4-0.8; P<0.001). An increased revenue margin associated with optimal staffing levels would only be achieved with salary levels at the 25th percentile of relevant benchmark compensation levels. Total staff overtime for all anaesthesia providers decreased (adjusted absolute difference -4.1 total overtime hours per day; 95% CI -7.0 to -1.3; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a change in anaesthesia staffing model was associated with improved billing compliance, higher billable anaesthesia units, and reduced overtime. The effects of the anaesthesia staff model on revenue and financial margin can be determined using our web-based margin-cost estimation tool.

Medicare payment trends compared to inflation for anesthesia services.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Identify changes and trends in the real value of Medicare payments for anesthesia services between 2000 and 2020 and how it may affect practices. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: We utilized the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) datasets of Medicare Part B claims to identify high volume anesthesia services in 2020 with 20 years of data. The Consumer Price Index was used as a measure of inflation to adjust prices. PATIENTS: The PSPS datasets contain summaries of all annual Medicare Part B claims and payment amounts by carrier and locality. INTERVENTIONS: Patients receiving anesthesia services. MEASUREMENTS: For each service, identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, we trended the average Medicare payment per procedure from 2000 to 2020 and calculated year to year changes and compound annual growth rate (CAGR). We also evaluated base and time units for each CPT code and the national Medicare anesthesia conversion factor (CF) for the same years. MAIN RESULTS: The average Medicare payment in the study sample increased 20.1% from 2000 to 2020. After adjusting for inflation, the average Medicare payment per anesthesia service decreased by 20.8% over that period. The Medicare anesthesia CF increased 24.9% in the same period, and after adjusting for inflation, the real value of the CF decreased 16.9%. Average CAGR across the 20 anesthesia services was 0.88%, compared to the average annual inflation at 2.06%. CONCLUSIONS: Average Medicare payment for common anesthesia services after adjusting for inflation have decreased from 2000 to 2020, consistent with findings in other physician specialties. Understanding these trends is important for practice viability and suggests significant financial implications for anesthesia practices and hospitals if the trend were to continue.

Association of dexmedetomidine use with haemodynamics, postoperative recovery, and cost in paediatric anaesthesia: a hospital registry study.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine utilisation in paediatric patients is increasing. We hypothesised that intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine in children is associated with longer postanaesthesia care unit length of stay, higher healthcare costs, and side-effects. METHODS: We analysed data from paediatric patients (aged 0-12 yr) between 2016 and 2021 in the Bronx, NY, USA. We matched our cohort with the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Kids' Inpatient Database (HCUP-KID). RESULTS: Among 18 104 paediatric patients, intraoperative dexmedetomidine utilisation increased from 51.7% to 85.7% between 2016 and 2021 (P<0.001). Dexmedetomidine was dose-dependently associated with a longer postanaesthesia care unit length of stay (adjusted absolute difference [ADadj] 19.7 min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.0-21.4 min; P<0.001, median length of stay of 122 vs 98 min). The association was magnified in children aged ≤2 yr undergoing short (≤60 min) ambulatory procedures (ADadj 33.3 min; 95% CI: 26.3-40.7 min; P<0.001; P-for-interaction <0.001). Dexmedetomidine was associated with higher total hospital costs of USD 1311 (95% CI: USD 835-1800), higher odds of intraoperative mean arterial blood pressure below 55 mm Hg (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 1.27; 95% CI: 1.16-1.39; P<0.001), and higher odds of heart rate below 100 beats min-1 (ORadj 1.32; 95% CI: 1.21-1.45; P<0.001), with no preventive effects on emergence delirium requiring postanaesthesia i.v. sedatives (ORadj 1.67; 95% CI: 1.04-2.68; P=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine is associated with unwarranted haemodynamic effects, longer postanaesthesia care unit length of stay, and higher costs, without preventive effects on emergence delirium.

Anesthesia-Related Closed Claims in Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

BACKGROUND: As higher acuity procedures continue to move from hospital-based operating rooms (HORs) to free-standing ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), concerns for patient safety remain high. We conducted a contemporary, descriptive analysis of anesthesia-related liability closed claims to understand risks to patient safety in the free-standing ASC setting, compared to HORs. METHODS: Free-standing ASC and HOR closed claims between 2015 and 2022 from The Doctors Company that involved an anesthesia provider responsible for the claim were included. We compared the coded data of 212 free-standing ASC claims with 268 HOR claims in terms of severity of injury, major injuries, allegations, comorbidities, contributing factors, and financial value of the claim. RESULTS: Free-standing ASC claims accounted for almost half of all anesthesia-related cases (44%, 212 of 480). Claims with high severity of injury were less frequent in free-standing ASCs (22%) compared to HORs (34%; P = .004). The most common types of injuries in both free-standing ASCs and HORs were dental injury (17% vs 17%) and nerve damage (14% vs 11%). No difference in frequency was noted for types of injuries between claims from free-standing ASCs versus HORs--except that burns appeared more frequently in free-standing ASC claims than in HORs (6% vs 2%; P = .015). Claims with alleged improper management of anesthesia occurred less frequently among free-standing ASC claims than HOR claims (17% vs 29%; P = .01), as well as positioning-related injury (3% vs 8%; P = .025). No difference was seen in frequency of claims regarding alleged improper performance of anesthesia procedures between free-standing ASCs and HORs (25% vs 19%; P = .072). Technical performance of procedures (ie, intubation and nerve block) was the most common contributing factor among free-standing ASC (74%) and HOR (74%) claims. Free-standing ASC claims also had a higher frequency of communication issues between provider and patient/family versus HOR claims (20% vs 10%; P = .004). Most claims were not associated with major comorbidities; however, cardiovascular disease was less prevalent in free-standing ASC claims versus HOR claims (3% vs 11%; P = .002). The mean ± standard deviation total of expenses and payments was lower among free-standing ASC claims ($167,000 ± $295,000) than HOR claims ($332,000 ± $775,000; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of medical malpractice claims may indicate higher-than-expected patient and procedural complexity in free-standing ASCs, presenting patient safety concerns and opportunities for improvement. Ambulatory anesthesia practices should consider improving safety culture and communication with families while ensuring that providers have up-to-date training and resources to safely perform routine anesthesia procedures.

Pragmatic sedation strategies to prevent secondary brain injury in low-resource settings.

Traumatic brain injury is the alteration in brain function due to an external force. It is common and affects millions of people worldwide annually. The World Health Organization estimates that 90% of global deaths caused by injuries occur in low- and middle-income countries, with traumatic brain injury contributing up to half of these trauma-related deaths. Patients with traumatic brain injury in low- and middle-income countries have twice the odds of dying compared with their counterparts in high-income countries. Sedation is a key element of care in the management of traumatic brain injury, used for its neuroprotective effects and to prevent secondary brain injury. While sedatives have the potential to improve outcomes, they can be challenging to administer and have potentially dangerous complications. Sedation in low-resource settings should aim to be effective, safe, affordable and feasible. In this paper, we summarise the indications for sedation in traumatic brain injury, the choice of sedative drugs and the pragmatic management and monitoring of sedated traumatic brain injury patients in low-resource settings.

Comparative Cost Effectiveness of Reflux-Based and Reflux-Independent Strategies for Barrett's Esophagus Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive tests for Barrett's esophagus (BE) detection have raised the prospect of broader nonreflux-based testing. Cost-effectiveness studies have largely studied men aged 50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. We evaluated the comparative cost effectiveness of BE screening tests in GERD-based and GERD-independent testing scenarios. METHODS: Markov modeling was performed in 3 scenarios in 50 years old individuals: (i) White men with chronic GERD (GERD-based); (ii) GERD-independent (all races, men and women), BE prevalence 1.6%; and (iii) GERD-independent, BE prevalence 5%. The simulation compared multiple screening strategies with no screening: sedated endoscopy (sEGD), transnasal endoscopy, swallowable esophageal cell collection devices with biomarkers, and exhaled volatile organic compounds. A hypothetical cohort of 500,000 individuals followed for 40 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was simulated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing each strategy with no screening and comparing screening strategies with each other were calculated. RESULTS: In both GERD-independent scenarios, most non-sEGD BE screening tests were cost effective. Swallowable esophageal cell collection devices with biomarkers were cost effective (<$35,000/QALY) and were the optimal screening tests in all scenarios. Exhaled volatile organic compounds had the highest ICERs in all scenarios. ICERs were low (<$25,000/QALY) for all tests in the GERD-based scenario, and all non-sEGD tests dominated no screening. ICERs were sensitive to BE prevalence and test costs. DISCUSSION: Minimally invasive nonendoscopic tests may make GERD-independent BE screening cost effective. Participation rates for these strategies need to be studied.

Challenges in healthcare financing for surgery in sub-Saharan Africa.

One-third of the global burden of disease is attributed to surgical conditions yet, 5 billion people globally, lack access to surgery. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, Obstetrics, and Anesthesia (LCOGS) published guidelines for improving access by reducing catastrophic health expenditures (CHEs) by 2030. This is especially important in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where 90% of the extreme poor reside. In this paper, we provide a narrative review of four studies on CHEs for surgical care in SSA published since 2015. We discuss healthcare financing in the countries and summarize the authors' key findings of out-of-pocket payments (OOP) and CHEs. Briefly, the studies enrolled 130 to 300 patients and collected direct OOPs via chart review of health costs or patient interviews. Indirect costs were calculated from lost wages and transportation costs. CHEs were defined as health costs exceeding 10% of the GDP per capita or the household income. Despite healthcare being reported as free in all studies, 60%-90% of surgical patients had CHEs with all costs considered. OOPs persists for medicines and anesthesia that should be covered under any health insurance scheme. In some cases, indirect costs associated with transportation and wages were major drivers of CHEs for surgery. Without addressing these gaps in coverage, more people will risk impoverishment in seeking surgical care in SSA.

An Assessment of Anesthesia Capacity in Liberia: Opportunities for Rebuilding Post-Ebola.

BACKGROUND: The health system of Liberia, a low-income country in West Africa, was devastated by a civil war lasting from 1989 to 2003. Gains made in the post-war period were compromised by the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic. The already fragile health system experienced worsening of health indicators, including an estimated 111% increase in the country's maternal mortality rate post-Ebola. Access to safe surgery is necessary for improvement of these metrics, yet data on surgical and anesthesia capacity in Liberia post-Ebola are sparse. The aim of this study was to describe anesthesia capacity in Liberia post-Ebola as part of the development of a National Surgical, Obstetric, and Anesthesia Plan (NSOAP). METHODS: Using the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA) Anaesthesia Facility Assessment Tool (AFAT), we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 26 of 32 Ministry of Health recognized hospitals that provide surgical care in Liberia. The surveyed hospitals served approximately 90% of the Liberian population. This assessment surveyed infrastructure, workforce, service delivery, information management, medications, and equipment and was performed between July and September 2019. Researchers obtained data from interviews with anesthesia department heads, medical directors and through direct site visits where possible. RESULTS: Anesthesiologist and nurse anesthetist workforce densities were 0.02 and 1.56 per 100,000 population, respectively, compared to 0.63 surgeons per 100,000 population and 0.52 obstetricians/gynecologists per 100,000 population. On average, there were 2 functioning operating rooms (ORs; OR in working condition that can be used for patient care) per hospital (standard deviation [SD] = 0.79; range, 1-3). Half of the hospitals surveyed had a postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and intensive care unit (ICU); however, only 1 hospital had mechanical ventilation capacity in the ICU. Ketamine and lidocaine were widely available. Intravenous (IV) morphine was always available in only 6 hospitals. None of the hospitals surveyed completely met the minimum World Health Organization (WHO)-WFSA standards for health care facilities where surgery and anesthesia are provided. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we noted several critical gaps in anesthesia and surgical capacity in Liberia, in spite of the massive global response post-Ebola directed toward health system development. Further investment across all domains is necessary to attain minimum international standards and to facilitate the provision of safe surgery and anesthesia in Liberia. The study results will be considered in development of an NSOAP for Liberia.

Global demand for cancer surgery and an estimate of the optimal surgical and anaesthesia workforce between 2018 and 2040: a population-based modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The growing demand for cancer surgery has placed a global strain on health systems. In-depth analyses of the global demand for cancer surgery and optimal workforce requirements are needed to plan service provision. We estimated the global demand for cancer surgery and the requirements for an optimal surgical and anaesthesia workforce, using benchmarks based on clinical guidelines. METHODS: Using models of benchmark surgical use based on clinical guidelines, we estimated the proportion of cancer cases with an indication for surgery across 183 countries, stratified by income group. These proportions were multiplied by age-adjusted national estimates of new cancer cases using GLOBOCAN 2018 data and then aggregated to obtain the estimated number of surgical procedures required globally. The numbers of cancer surgical procedures in 44 high-income countries were divided by the actual number of surgeons and anaesthetists in the respective countries to calculate cancer procedures per surgeon and anaesthetist ratios. Using the median (IQR) of these ratios as benchmarks, we developed a three-tiered optimal surgical and anaesthesia workforce matrix, and the predictions were extrapolated up to 2040. FINDINGS: Our model estimates that the number of cancer cases globally with an indication for surgery will increase by 5 million procedures (52%) between 2018 (9 065 000) and 2040 (13 821 000). The greatest relative increase in surgical demand will occur in 34 low-income countries, where we also observed the largest gaps in workforce requirements. To match the median benchmark for high-income countries, the surgical workforce in these countries would need to increase by almost four times and the anaesthesia workforce by nearly 5·5 times. The greatest increase in optimal workforce requirements from 2018 to 2040 will occur in low-income countries (from 28 000 surgeons to 58 000 surgeons; 107% increase), followed by lower-middle-income countries (from 166 000 surgeons to 277 000 surgeons; 67% increase). INTERPRETATION: The global demand for cancer surgery and the optimal workforce are predicted to increase over the next two decades and disproportionately affect low-income countries. These estimates provide an appropriate framework for planning the provision of surgical services for cancer worldwide. FUNDING: University of New South Wales Scientia Scholarship and UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund.

Evaluating patient preferences for thermal ablation versus nonthermal, nontumescent varicose vein treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To measure patient preferences for attributes associated with thermal ablation and nonthermal, nontumescent varicose vein treatments. METHODS: Data were collected from an electronic patient preference survey taken by 70 adult participants (aged 20 years or older) at three Center for Vein Restoration clinics in New Jersey from July 19, 2019, through August 13, 2019. Survey participation was voluntary and anonymous (participation rate of 80.5% [70/87]). Patients were shown 10 consecutive screens that displayed three hypothetical treatment scenarios with different combinations of six attributes of interest and a none option. Choice-based conjoint analysis estimated the relative importance of different aspects of care, trade-offs between these aspects, and total satisfaction that respondents derived from different healthcare procedures. Market simulation analysis compared clusters of attributes mimicking thermal ablation and nonthermal, nontumescent treatments. RESULTS: Of the six attributes studied, out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures were the most important to patients (37.2%), followed by postoperative discomfort (17.1%), risk of adverse events (16.3%), time to return to normal activity (11.0%), number of injections (10.0%), and number of visits (8.4%). Patients were willing to pay the most to avoid postoperative discomfort ($68.9) and risk of adverse events ($65.8). The market simulation analysis found that, regardless of the level of OOP spending, 60% to 80% of respondents favored attribute combinations corresponding with nonthermal, nontumescent procedures over thermal ablation, and that less than 1% of participants would forgo either treatment under no cost sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are highly sensitive to OOP costs for minimally invasive varicose vein treatments. Market simulation analysis favored nonthermal, nontumescent procedures over thermal ablation.

Clinical and economic burden of postoperative nausea and vomiting: Analysis of existing cost data.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an undesirable outcome that occurs in up to 30% of patients. Over the years, the cost of treating PONV has decreased due to the availability of cheaper yet effective antiemetics. Limiting PONV development benefits the hospital system as studies have shown that prevention is associated with shorter post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stays as well as decreased supply costs and staffing burden. The financial burden for prophylaxis against PONV has been shown to be less than what patients are willing to pay to prevent the development of PONV. Studies have also shown that prevention of initial development of PONV limits readmission rates, which is beneficial to both the patient and the hospital. Owing to recent economic analysis and reductions in antiemetic prices, the patient's preference for comfort, the hospital's commitment to providing the best care, and the system's desire for fiscal prudence are aligned. This culminates in recommending PONV prophylaxis for all patients undergoing anesthesia.

Reducing Medication Waste While Improving Access to Sugammadex: A Quality Improvement Project in Medication Stewardship.

The relatively high cost of sugammadex compared to neostigmine limits its widespread use to reverse neuromuscular blockade, despite its faster onset and more complete clinical effect. While ensuring timely access to sugammadex is important in improving perioperative safety, it is also vital to control unnecessary spending. We describe a quality improvement initiative to reduce excess spending on sugammadex while improving access for anesthesia providers. Monthly spending on sugammadex decreased by 52% ($70,777 vs $33,821), while medication access increased via automated medication dispensers in each operating room. Clinical usage decreased by one-third, with presumed increased adherence to dosing guidelines.

Cost Analysis of Vaginal Anti-incontinence Procedures at a Tertiary Care Center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of 3 vaginal procedures used in the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at 1 tertiary institution. METHODS: The costs of autologous fascial sling (AFS), synthetic mid-urethral sling (MUS), and anterior vaginal wall suspension (AVWS) were analyzed from a prospective long-term database, with follow-up to 5 years after these procedures. Original costing data were obtained for operating room, medical and surgical supplies, pharmacy, anesthesia supplies, and room and bed over 2 consecutive years. Included were complete cost data provided by our institution from Medicare (2012) and private payer insurance. RESULTS: For the year 2013, the AVWS, AFS, and MUS had total median costs of $4513, $5721, and $3311, respectively. Total cost and all subcosts except for pharmacy costs were significantly different for each procedure. AVWS and MUS placement differed from each other regarding the cost of anesthesia and hospital stay, which was higher for AVWS. Compared to AFS, AVWS had significantly lower total costs due to decreased costs associated with operating time, hospital stay, and surgical supplies (P <.0001). At 5 years after these procedures, synthetic slings had less frequent follow-up visits. The most common revision for SUI failure was a bulking agent injection. CONCLUSION: Initial costs of vaginal SUI procedures at our institution fared favorably compared to SUI procedures reported in the contemporary US literature. Long-term costs can vary based on physician preference in follow-up routine and etiology of SUI.

Differential Index-Hospitalization Cost Center Impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Most hospitals in the United States are reimbursed for colectomy via a bundled payment based on the diagnosis-related group assigned. Enhanced recovery after surgery programs have been shown to improve the value of colorectal surgery, but little is known about the granular financial tradeoffs required at individual hospitals. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to analyze the index-hospitalization impact on specific cost centers associated with enhanced recovery after surgery implementation for diagnosis-related groups commonly assigned to patients undergoing colon resections. DESIGN: We performed a single-institution retrospective, nonrandomized, preintervention (2013-2014) and postintervention (2015-2017) analysis of hospital costs. SETTING: This study was conducted at an academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 1297 patients with diagnosis-related group 330 (colectomy with complications/comorbidities) and 331 (colectomy without complications/comorbidities) were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total index-hospitalization cost. Secondary outcomes included specific cost center expenses. RESULTS: Total median cost for diagnosis-related group 330 in the pre-enhanced recovery after surgery group was $24,111 ($19,285-$28,658) compared to $21,896 ($17,477-$29,179) in the enhanced recovery after surgery group, p = 0.01. Total median cost for diagnosis-related group 331 in the pre-enhanced recovery after surgery group was $19,268 ($17,286-$21,858) compared to $18,444 ($15,506-$22,847) in the enhanced recovery after surgery group, p = 0.22. When assessing cost changes after enhanced recovery after surgery implementation for diagnosis-related group 330, operating room costs increased (p = 0.90), nursing costs decreased (p = 0.02), anesthesia costs increased (p = 0.20), and pharmacy costs increased (p = 0.08). For diagnosis-related group 331, operating room costs increased (p = 0.001), nursing costs decreased (p < 0.001), anesthesia costs increased (p = 0.03), and pharmacy costs increased (p = 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This is a single-center study with a pre- and postintervention design. CONCLUSIONS: The returns on investment at the hospital level for enhanced recovery after surgery implementations in colorectal surgery result largely from cost savings associated with decreased nursing expenses. These savings likely offset increased spending on operating room supplies, anesthesia, and medications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B204. IMPACTO DE LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DEL PROTOCOLO DE RECUPERACIÓN MEJORADA DESPUÉS DE CIRUGÍA EN EL COSTO DE LA HOSPITALIZACIÓN ÍNDICE EN CENTROS ESPECÍFICOS: La mayoría de los hospitales en los Estados Unidos son reembolsados por la colectomía a través de un paquete de pago basado en el grupo de diagnóstico asignado. Se ha demostrado que los programas de recuperación después de la cirugía mejoran el valor de la cirugía colorrectal, pero se sabe poco sobre las compensaciones financieras granulares que se requieren en los hospitales individuales.El objetivo de este estudio es analizar el impacto del índice de hospitalización en centros de costos específicos asociados con la implementación de RMDC para grupos relacionados con el diagnóstico comúnmente asignados a pacientes que se someten a resecciones de colon.Realizamos un análisis retrospectivo, no aleatorio, previo (2013-2014) y posterior a la intervención (2015-2017) de los costos hospitalarios de una sola institución.Centro médico académico.Un total de 1. 297 pacientes con diagnóstico relacionado con el grupo 330 (colectomía con complicaciones/comorbilidades) y 331 (colectomía sin complicaciones/comorbilidades).El resultado primario fue el índice total de costos de hospitalización. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron gastos específicos del centro de costos.El costo medio total para el grupo relacionado con el diagnóstico de 330 en el grupo de recuperación pre-mejorada después de la cirugía fue de $24,111 ($19,285- $28,658) en comparación con $21,896 ($17,477- $29,179) en el grupo de recuperación mejorada después de la cirugía, p = 0.01. El costo medio total para DRG 331 en el grupo de recuperación pre-mejorada después de la cirugía fue de $19,268 ($17,286- $21,858) en comparación con $18,444 ($15,506-$22,847) en el grupo de recuperación mejorada después de la cirugía, p = 0.22. Al evaluar los cambios en los costos después de una recuperación mejorada después de la implementación de la cirugía para el grupo 330 relacionado con el diagnóstico, los costos de la sala de operaciones aumentaron (p = 0.90), los costos de enfermería disminuyeron (p = 0.02) los costos de anestesia aumentaron (p = 0.20) y los costos de farmacia aumentaron (p = 0.08). Para el grupo 331 relacionado con el diagnóstico, los costos de la sala de operaciones aumentaron (p = 0.001), los costos de enfermería disminuyeron (p < 0.001) los costos de anestesia aumentaron (p = 0.03) y los costos de farmacia aumentaron (p = 0.001).Este es un estudio de un solo centro con un diseño previo y posterior a la intervención.El retorno de la inversión a nivel hospitalario para una recuperación mejorada después de la implementación de la cirugía en la cirugía colorrectal se debe en gran parte al ahorro de costos asociado con la disminución de los gastos de enfermería. Es probable que estos ahorros compensen el aumento de los gastos en suministros de quirófano, anestesia y medicamentos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B204. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Determinants of Cost Variation in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Implications for Alternative Payment Models.

BACKGROUND: Alternative payment models have been proposed to deliver high-quality, cost-effective care. Under these models, payments may be shared between the hospital and the post-acute care services. Post-acute care services may account for one-third of the episode costs for total hip or knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). Because hospitals or episode initiators bear notable financial risks in these payment models with minimal risk adjustment for complexity, it has been suggested these models may lead to prospective selection of healthier and younger patients. Studies evaluating the effect of patient demographics, medical complexity, and surgical characteristics on the cost of index hospitalization have been limited. We aimed to (1) quantify the impact of patient demographics, medical complexity, and surgical characteristics (type of anesthesia and operating time) on variation in direct cost of index hospitalization and (2) examine the association of these characteristics with discharge with home health services or to rehabilitation facility. METHODS: Retrospective study of 3,542 patients admitted to our hospital for elective THA/TKA between 2012 and 2017. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used for analysis. RESULTS: Patient demographics and medical complexity accounted for 6.2% (THA) and 5.6% (TKA) of variation in direct cost of index hospitalization. Surgical characteristics accounted for 37.1% (THA) and 35.3% (TKA) of the cost variation. One thousand one hundred eighty-three (53.4%) patients were discharged with home health services, and 1,237 (29.4%) were discharged to rehabilitation facility. Patient demographics and higher medical complexity were markedly associated with discharge with home health services or to rehabilitation facility after THA/TKA. DISCUSSION: Patient demographics and medical complexity had minimal impact on variation in direct cost of index hospitalization for elective THA/TKA compared with surgical characteristics but were markedly associated with discharge with home health services or to rehabilitation facility. Having additional risk adjustment in these payment models could mitigate concerns about access to care for higher risk, higher cost patients.